Kevin Frisch: Christian critics -- pray for Hollywood

I’m surprised that movie makers have not yet struck upon the idea of releasing PG- or even G-rated versions of some PG13- or R-rated films.

Kevin Frisch

I’m surprised that movie makers have not yet struck upon the idea of releasing PG- or even G-rated versions of some PG13- or R-rated films.

This thought struck me recently as I was perusing Vol. 2 of “The Christian Family Guide to Movies & Videos.” The book, which includes hundreds of reviews by a couple dozen critics, is intended to steer readers toward films that reflect Christian values and away from those that are sinful, profane or heretical (i.e., most of what comes out of Hollywood these days).

The recommendations range from “acceptable” to “evil,” with most falling into the “caution” or “extreme caution” categories.

One needn’t be a devout Christian to agree with some of the critics’ observations:
• Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise: “A feature-length argument against sequels.”

• Spaceballs: “Mel Brooks should write a little note to the proper authorities saying, ‘Stop me before I do it again.’”

Indeed, the Christian perspective makes for some barbs that rival the most pointed of mainstream criticism, such as this assessment of a rather poor 1989 Blake Edwards film called “Skin Deep”: “Why God postpones judging us when our society produces works such as this is beyond me.”

Overall, the reviews reflect a view not of righteous intolerance or high-minded distaste but, well, frustration. Time and again, otherwise enjoyable fare is rejected, sometimes reluctantly, because of seemingly gratuitous profanity, violence or nudity.

• “One reviewer saw an edited version of ‘Die Hard’ with no profanity nor (sic) nudity on a cross-country flight and was impressed. The edited film was just as exciting as the original without being offensive.”

• “‘Harry and the Hendersons’ could be a G-rated movie without the aforementioned profanities. ... Why Hollywood has to mar a fun film with bad language is a mystery.”

• “We cannot recommend ‘Married to the Mob’ because of some brief nudity and profanity. We suggest that you wait until it is edited for television.”

See how desperate this audience is for inoffensive fare? They’re willing to sit through edited versions chock full of commercials. What we have here is a problem with an obvious solution: Producing milder versions of certain movies — so long as they’re labeled as such and revised with the input and approval of the filmmakers.

Now, I know the arguments this would generate: Movies are art and art is intended to challenge, even shock its audience.

Some movies are art. A very few. Most are entertainment, rising nowhere near the level of art (or, in many cases, even craft). Besides, producing alternate versions of select films does not prevent the originals from serving their “artistic” purpose.

The music industry already has adopted this strategy. Versions of songs that alter or delete indelicate lyrics are routinely made available to radio stations. And some country artists record pop and country versions of the same song, the better to lasso a wider audience.

Clearly, not every film lends itself to expurgation. According to the Christian Family Guide, there’s no way to make acceptable movies like “Dirty Dancing” (“Christians should never support movies that pander to prurient interests”), “Beetlejuice” (“God condemns spiritism and any consultation with demons”) or “The Last Temptation of Christ” (“The most blasphemous movie ever made”).

True, the reviewers sometimes seem to go overboard looking for unacceptable content. Disney’s animated “Cinderella” earns a “caution” recommendation because it “suggests that magic and wishful thinking can overcome evil.” And “The Accidental Tourist” is cited for containing “brief upper back nudity,” which I’ve often been guilty of myself at various beaches and pools.

Still, since the preponderance of today’s movies seems targeted at 9-year-olds, perhaps downgrading the language and violence to a similar maturity level would prove a profitable gambit.